You are here:

Teaching Massive, Open, Online, Courses (MOOCs): Tales from the Front Line

, , , Boise State University

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 3, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


Very little research has been conducted about what it is like to teach a MOOC. Given this, a mixed methods study, involving a survey of 186 MOOC instructors and 15 follow-up interviews, was conducted to explore the motivation, experiences, and perceptions of instructors who have taught massive open online courses. Findings indicate that instructors were motivated to teach MOOCs for three main reasons: (1) interest and passion, (2) publicity and marketing, or (3) benefits and incentives. Most instructors had little online teaching experience prior to teaching their first MOOC, but were satisfied with the experience. The majority believed their own MOOC provided a high quality learning experience but thought that MOOCs overall might not be as good as face-to-face courses. Concerns were raised about the future of MOOCs for online learning.


Lowenthal, P., Snelson, C. & Perkins, R. (2018). Teaching Massive, Open, Online, Courses (MOOCs): Tales from the Front Line. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved January 17, 2019 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Adams, C., Yin, Y., Vargas Madriz, L.F., & Mullen, C.S. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: The tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35, 202–216.
  2. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D.E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G.S., Ho, A.D., & Seaton, D.T. (2013). Studying learning
  3. Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  4. Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2017). Understanding learning and teaching in MOOCs from the perspectives of students and instructors: A review of the literature from 2014 to 2016. In K.C.
  5. Ebben, M., & Murphy, J.S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 328–345.
  6. Fergusen, R., Sharples, M., & Beale, R. (2015). MOOCs 2030: A future for massive online learning. In C.J.
  7. Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open
  8. Lowenthal, P.R., & Hodges, C. (2015). In search of quality: Using quality matters to analyze the quality of
  9. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers& Education, 80, 77-83.
  10. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  11. Moe, R. (2015). The brief& Expansive history (and future) of the MOOC: Why two divergent models share the same name. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 2(1). Retrieved from
  12. Najafi, H., Rolheiser, C., Harrison, L., & Haklev, S. (2015). University of Toronto instructors’ experiences
  13. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Leech, N.L. (2005). Taking the “Q” out of research: Teaching research
  14. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from
  15. Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013–2015. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17, 198–221. Retrieved from
  16. Wiley, D. (2015). The MOOC misstep and open education. In C.J. Bonk, M.M. Lee, T.C. Reeves, & T.H. Reynolds, T.H. (Eds.), MOOCs and open education around the world (pp. 3-11). New York, NY:

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact